InSoil vs. Lande: Which Platform Is Better?

More collateral cover at Lande

On regulation the two are level. InSoil is run by UAB Heavy Finance of Vilnius, ECSP-licensed by the Bank of Lithuania since July 2023. Behind Lande stands SIA LANDE Platform, authorised by Latvijas Banka since February 2024. Both issue their loans themselves and secure them with farmland and machinery. Neither offers a buyback guarantee.

If you want to judge how well a loan is covered, the loan-to-value ratio (LTV) is the number that matters. It is the loan amount divided by the collateral value. A low figure means a wider gap between loan and collateral, so more protection when enforcement raises less than hoped.

Lande lends at most 60%, 40 to 60% by its own account, and its own statistics put the average at just 41% (statistics, early September 2026). InSoil goes up to 70% (rethink-p2p) and publishes no average. The higher LTV makes InSoil loans the thinner-covered ones on paper, but on part of the Lithuanian book the Lithuanian agricultural loan guarantee fund would step in on default, covering up to 80% of the outstanding loan amount according to rethink-p2p.

Lande's own guarantee sounds bigger than it is for you. The platform advertises an EIF guarantee of up to €10.4M. But a footnote in the 2025 annual report limits it to loans held by the subsidiaries, not the loans you subscribe to on the platform.

Your money is also tied up for less time at Lande. Its loans run 21 months on average, and on several repayment profiles capital comes back during the term. InSoil issues bullet loans: interest is paid along the way, the principal arrives only at the end, on average after 36 months (see the statistics).

InSoil has more loans in arrears and still runs at a loss

Start with the arrears. At Lande, of €65.2M some €3.0M is in default (4.6%) and another €6.0M sits in the arrears buckets, just under 14% together (statistics). At InSoil it is €11.57M of defaulted capital, 10.51% of all lending (statistics), and per the Q1 2026 review 13.9% has been overdue for more than 90 days.

What matters more than the level is how old the arrears are. Of Lande's €9.0M behind schedule, €3.7M sits in the shortest bucket, 5 to 30 days. It is not unusual for farmers to service a repayment late when the harvest comes in late or fails. In this kind of lending that is normal and no alarm signal in itself. At InSoil the larger part sits in the long arrears, and those often end in enforcement. Even so, neither platform has cost an investor a total loss yet, according to the two analyses reviewed here.

InSoil also shows which countries the defaults come from, and that is a real plus. The quarterly review breaks it down by country. In Lithuania 86.1% of loans are current or repaid, in Latvia 85.6%, in Portugal only 62.1% and in Poland 54.6%. On capital more than 90 days overdue, Portugal (31.5%), Bulgaria (29.8%) and Poland (28.7%) lead. Auto-invest lets you steer around that spread by country.

The second weak spot is the balance sheet. InSoil's 2025 accounts show a pre-tax loss of €182,951 on revenue of €2.68M. The reported profit of €332,606 comes solely from a deferred-tax credit, not from the business. For 2024 the books carried a loss of €1.64M (later restated to €1.78M). Against €636,326 of equity stand €7.42M of liabilities, and the company shrank from 20 to 13 people. The 2025 accounts were audited by a smaller firm than 2024 (Grant Thornton Baltic); both opinions are clean, but the change falls in the year whose reported profit comes only from deferred tax.

There is a strong counter-argument. On 30 June 2026 Pollen Street Capital gave InSoil a secured credit line of €120M; the loans it funds are guaranteed by the European Investment Fund. Anyone putting that much money against a loan book has examined it first. Those loans, though, sit on the company balance sheet like Lande's, not in the platform portfolio.

InSoil's green loans are its most interesting product and the one the P2P scene argues about most. They are meant to earn their return from the later sale of carbon certificates. Whether that holds up is still open. The seven that came back in early 2026 returned 0.00 to 0.80% a year.

A thin supply of loans at Lande

Lande's operator is on solid financial ground. The 2025 accounts show revenue of €2,364,019, a profit of €206,485 and equity of €722,593, the second profitable year in a row. The company needs no fresh outside capital. Only the auditor is named, Olga Kuzmiča of Orients Audit & Finance; her report itself is missing from the published file.

What Lande still has to build out is the supply of loans. In early July 2026, its 10,900 investors had only around 15 projects open at once. Farm lending is a seasonal business, so the supply swings with the season. Depending on where in the year you are, auto-invest can take a while to place your money (cash drag).

Lande gives no real net return after defaults. The long-term portfolios quoted on its own site sit at 8 to 10%, and the May 2026 report gives a 12.39% average interest rate, which is the coupon before arrears. InSoil discloses more here. Its loans fully repaid in early 2026 returned 13.67% on average, yet across the whole portfolio investors come out lower. The author of rethink-p2p reports 7.84% for himself, and Jean Galea cites a BeyondP2P analysis of around 4.5%. Both advertise more than arrives. Only at InSoil can you check it against published arrears and recovery figures.

What happens when a loan defaults?

As set out above, neither Lande nor InSoil offers a buyback guarantee. If a farmer defaults, the collateral has to be enforced, which means land, machinery and the like have to be sold. Your capital stays locked up until that is done. How much of it comes back depends on the LTV and on how readily those assets find a buyer.

That makes the record on completed recoveries worth a look. InSoil publishes the recovery rate by year cohort. Of the loans that defaulted in the second half of 2021, 110.35% has now flowed back; the first quarter of 2026 brought in €957,468, and €6.24M in total (quarterly review). Lande reports the collection stages monthly and, in May 2026, the full recovery of a Lithuanian default (report). Neither states an average duration. The roughly 250 days often quoted for InSoil come from Jean Galea and rethink-p2p, not from the platform itself.

The good news is that the normal interest keeps running at both while enforcement takes its course. On top of it comes a penalty surcharge, and the two platforms handle it differently. At InSoil the borrower pays 0.2% a day; you keep half of it, the other half goes to the platform as a fee (price list). At Lande, under the loan terms, the operator and the collateral agent keep the entire surcharge.

Shedding a late loan is hard at both. Lande's secondary market takes only loans paid on time; arrears, defaults and full-bullet loans are blocked. InSoil's secondary market is open, but you would have to accept a steep discount to move a loan that is behind.

Who is InSoil for, who is Lande for?

InSoil is for people who want to decide for themselves. You filter auto-invest by rating, country, collateral and LTV, and the quarterly reports show you afterwards how well your choice worked out. You pay for it with roughly three-year terms, 15% Lithuanian withholding tax (cut to 10% up front with form DAS-1) and an interface only in English and Lithuanian (money management).

Lande is for anyone who cares more about safety and steady cash flow than about choice. Low leverage, regular cash flow, a German-language interface, no tax withheld at source. The flip side is the thin supply, so your money sometimes sits until a suitable project comes along.

You do not have to pick one; you can hold both. Just keep in mind that they hang on the same sector, the same weather, subsidy and price risks, so a bad harvest year in Eastern Europe hits both at once. Farming is a good building block for your portfolio, one among several. How to build proper diversification across P2P lending is covered in the piece on diversification.

On balance, Lande currently sits ahead of InSoil in the platform comparison, and the two get there from opposite sides. InSoil is larger, more open and has a big lender behind it, but carries more arrears and a company that makes no operating profit yet. Lande is smaller, profitable and more cautious, but shows fewer numbers and has fewer projects.